The Middle Market is not dying

The Middle Market is not dying

There’s been a lot of debate in our industry in the past year about the so-called “middle market”. This is the class of games between say Call of Duty and Angry Birds. Not quite AAA (i.e. not $25 million to produce) but also not $250,000 to make the game. The middle market is the world that Stardock and Paradox thrive in. And both of us have done very well in this market.

The argument against the middle market basically boils down to market size. That the middle market just misses the “sweet spot”. Retailers don’t want to carry middle market products because they don’t sell as well AAA or the casual market. The thing is, digital distribution changes all this.

I contend that a game like say Baldur’s Gate (with updated graphics but no where near Dragon Age) would likely sell very well at a fraction of the cost of Dragon Age. The same is true on a whole host of games. The challenge, of course, is for developers to carefully budget their title based on their best guess on the market size. A game like War in the East may not sell a million copies but they also didn’t cost that much to make.

I am not a fan of some of the "big" games. I look for the things I like, the trouble is finding out about some of these middle of the road games. Marketing becomes the bigger issue. That being said, I am looking forward to Diablo III.

I'd give the advantage to the 'middle market' for a number of reasons.

Digital distribution is certainly going to help, however what I see being one of the biggest advantages is that the mega-budget games often are driven by the publisher's perception of market demand to allocate their resources towards shiny graphics and clever engines. The 'middle market' has the potential at least to focus on actual AI or story development, which are more often in my mind the real hallmarks of a great game.

Contrast Dragon Age with Baldur's Gate, for example. I devoted years of my spare time to BG and its sequels, replaying multiple times. Dragon Age I played through once and discarded. The quality of the plot, and the more open nature of the BG world had everything to do with that.

In a similar vein, contrast the AI of Civ V with GCII. No comparison whatsoever. Especially by the end of the cycle, the GCII AIs felt like opponents - not perfect, but the idea that you might be able to 'get in their heads' wasn't laughable. They had motives and judgement and executed accordingly. Civ V feels like playing against a cup of dice.

Another thing favoring better game development by the 'middle market' is that what passes for discount graphics these days are actually quite pleasant. Even minimum computer specs these days are capable of astounding things, and there is lots of precedent for simple (to code) but great-looking graphics. So putting resources into excellent art, story, and AI doesn't necessarily mean looking at a pixellated mush on the screen.

I am getting sick and tired of ports; games designed for consoles, and PC's. It seems that every game I've played that has been developed as a port has been gutted to work on the console. I've said it many a time, consoles might look like a Porsche, but you open up the engine compartment and you find some 2-cycle, 10 horse power engine from a lawnmower. It seems to me, that most innovation is going to come out of the middle market. Companies tend not to take chances when a lot of money on the line. It's one reason they try to attain the markets they do. I wonder if they do as well as they do because of loyalty, and not game quality? Just a thought. At any rate, in my mind, I generally don't care where a game comes from, though some companies and countries I will not support if I am knowledgable of what I am purchasing. A good game is a good game. As long as say Stardock makes good games, and I can buy them, and have an option to get a physical copy sent, and maybe a good manual, I'll buy say Stardock games. The odd thing to me is, if you are successful financially, does it matter what market you attempt to sell to? I guess it boils down to where the priorities are, not that I don't think that every business doesn't want to make money. That is why they call it business, and I'm about tot ramble.

The fact is, I think it may boil down to the owners being gamers, and what they enjoy, and want to produce, as quality, versus people whose only vested interest is making money.

Another thing favoring better game development by the 'middle market' is that what passes for discount graphics these days are actually quite pleasant. Even minimum computer specs these days are capable of astounding things, and there is lots of precedent for simple (to code) but great-looking graphics. So putting resources into excellent art, story, and AI doesn't necessarily mean looking at a pixellated mush on the screen.

I think the reason for that is many developers don't understand that Art Direction is more important than the number of pixels. Just because you can have thousands upon thousands of details to a game's graphics doesn't mean it's going to look nice. High Def crap is still crap.

On the original topic: I definitely agree that the middle market is needed. In fact, most of the money I've spent on games in the past year has been on middle market games. Largely, I think, because middle market developers can focus on a single demographic for their games, a luxury AAA studios don't have anymore. You will never see a game like Elemental or Mount & Blade made by, say, EA because they need to market their games for as many people as possible just to break even.

Few companies have given me as much joy as Paradox, and I'm certain no other companies games have taken more time out of my life. I buy 10x as many "middle market" games than AAA games. If the gaming industry were reduced to just casual games and AAA games, I might have to find a new hobby. There simply are not enough AAA games out there for a gamer like me to keep me interested. Oh, and I don't play casual games. I play Hardcore Motha F'n Strategy games!

I think there's still room for middle market games, but asking the same price as for a "AAA" game is unreasonable. Many middle market games are nowhere near as impressive graphically speaking as AAA games. Of course for some that doesn't matter, but it does for me.

As Lord Xia said, I also spend much more money on middle market than AAA games.

I payed more for Dominions 3 than for any other computer game. And felt it was worth every cent and then some. I think if you have a niche game, that may have crappy graphics, but is incredibly deep, its fine to charge $60 bucks for it. Dominions 3 might be the best strategy games of all time.

Although that might be a rare exception, I think most middle market games should be priced down, $20-$40 sounds right.

Middle market is my market. Majority of games I personally buy are in that group. Why? Well to put it simply.. when a company spends 25 million dollars to create a game.. they tend to think, and probably rightfully so, that they need to make it as accessible as possible. Accessibility is great and all.. but it inevitably breaks down to the question of making returns on the investment. Someone says a feature is a bit too complex,or new players the genre/series need to be eased in etc etc. The exact reasons aren't important.. but the inevitable result is a game that is watered down in order to cater to and attract a wider audience, and while it may succeed in doing just that it results in games i don't like.

I personally want more complex games, more dynamics etc. Playing a game that could have been made 20 years ago but with modern graphics aint my cup o tea, I want it to tax my mind, force me to learn the game, and tax my patience at times. Building a game with selling the most copies in mind are not likely to do any of these things, and when your spending Huge amounts on developing a game.. your certainly going to want to sell the most copies.

Simple game play + large amount of your budget into graphics is the current formula for the majority of AAA games. Unless this changes I'll continue supporting mid and small budget games that take complex gameplay more serious than pretty visuals that keep people distracted from the fact all they are doing is left clicking over and over to shoot, hit end turn, swing their sword etc.

(the problem is my fellow consumers.. who tend to feel that thinking is hard work so to relax they need something that involves 0 mental exercise but has to be pretty to look at.. AAA game makers are simply responding to their demand for mindless entertainment with lots of pretties. While middle market and small market games can afford to design games more to my specific tastes)

I guess my question is if Stardock is a middle-ware company, how come Elemental got AAA pricing when it was first released?

Did it cost as much as a AAA title to produce and was the cost justified?

I can answer the question in general. Products that have a smaller market charge more because the production costs have to be divided among less customers. Its why a ticket to a movie that costs 100 million to make costs as much as a ticket to a movie that cost 20 million to make. this is true of all markets where the bulk of the costs are fixed (ie: the production cost is roughly the same if it has 10 customers or 10 million).

That being said I want to be able to see my 100 million dollar movie blockbusters (the Lord of the Rings) and my 20 million dollars movies (The 40 Year Old Virgin). It would be a sad world if either stopped being made.

I don't think it's dying, but I think it takes a specific skillset and genre to make it work, one which guys like you and Paradox have. There's a reason Stardock isn't making a FPS.

BTW Elemental cost $50. The AAA PC titles now go for $60.

I think the proper pricing point for a middle-market game is $40-$50, so Elemental was on the high end, but acceptable.

Paradox games, just wait six months unless you're desperate for something new. It will be half price fairly quickly. (I understand why Stardock doesn't do this- I like what Paradox does as a customer a little too much for it to make good business sense)

The vast majority of games I play are "middle market". They're games tailored to a more specific audience, which means many of them cater more directly to my tastes. The AAA games and casual games have their own place, but being designed to appeal to as many people as possible, I often find that I personally get less enjoyment out of them. If they were cheaper, that would be fine, but they're much more expensive, so I end up buying only a very few games of type.

After buying netbook and discovering digital distribution platforms I (re)discovered old games on the one hand and middle market on the other. I would really love to play new Baldur's Gate-like game. An RPG game based on E:WoM is really great idea. It could be world-driven RPG game I'm looking for. (But I know that it would be a self-deception to believe that it would run on my Atom N450 netbook...

I don't think that Dragon Age is worse than say BG. It just gives a very different experience.

largely, i agree with crass_monkey. in sheer technical terms, elemental is as graphically powerful as it needs to be. strategy games don't need 10 billion poly models. even huge budget games like The Old Republic have realised that it is not always worth pushing the envelope any more.

but i do think there are good arguments for questioning the dogma that everything that isn't an idie or retro tital should be sold at $50 (£30 over here). if a friend had asked me, immediately after i bought it on release day, if elemental was worth £30, i would probably have said no. but £20? probably yes.

nice to see that the stardock rpg is still being hinted at. i haven't played a good rpg that wasn't overproduced, linear and dumbed down since Neverwinter Nights 2. you guys should try and aquire the rights to the lionheart: legacy of the crusader setting. awful game, but one hell of a good premise for an rpg. or your own alternative history with magic thing. history is always public domain.

I really hope it's not dead. With a few exceptions (Dragon Age II, Starcraft II, a few "classics"), every game I've bought recently would fall under the category of "middle market". This is due to several things: my preferred genres (strategy, role-playing), my available money, and my general tastes. Solid gameplay is worth more (a lot more) than the latest graphics), and the type of games that I enjoy (particularly the Paradox strategy games) quite simply don't have the mass appeal to be more than "middle market" titles. So, don't stop making them!

largely, i agree with crass_monkey. in sheer technical terms, elemental is as graphically powerful as it needs to be. strategy games don't need 10 billion poly models. even huge budget games like The Old Republic have realised that it is not always worth pushing the envelope any more.

Though if you bring Shader Model 4.0 or above to the scene (or equivalent) then the models just need to be good enough and then the shader can generate extras (assuming a good algorithm, and yes, there are some very good ones out there) when the processing power is availible.

The Middle Market is the hope and home for the hardcore strategy gamer crowd.

While low budget caters for the casual market and those AAA productions are heavily oriented towards the "immersion-crowd" (willing to spend more time for a game than a casual gamer but presentation and atmosphere are of higher importance than game mechanics) the middle market has the budget to make many kinds of games / game mechanics work but is still flexible enough to leave the standard trail.

It is no surprise that many turnbased / sequence paced strategy games belong to the middle market.

I think to much emphasis is placed on game distribution and the old formulas are no longer relevant to todays distribution reality. For some reason the old thinking was that if you invest millions of dollars in a game it will be a success is not and has not ever been true. Dragon Age and Bioware titles in general are a success not because of ho much they invested but rather their commitment to a quality product. Specifically the fact Bioware titles tell a great story. The fact that they provide great eye candy does not hurt but it is the "what comes next" that hooks you and keeps you playing till one in the morning. The same can be said for Blizzard titles. Yeah 3-D models are nice but the hook for StarCraft II was the Raynor story line. People love a good story and video games allow us to blend the best parts of literature and cinematic's. If you create a great story fans will come. To further prove this look at the moding community. These mods have virtually no retail or marketing presence yet they are more widely distributed than many AAA titles. The success of DotA proves that people are looking for a quality product and one of the key factors to a quality product is a good story.